Cad help please
- Thread starter Mlh
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
Before I make any recommendations- I’d like to know what your inspirations were and what exactly are you looking for/ what’s your specific concerns if any?
I looked back at your previous thread ( and please correct me if I am wrong) here is comparison/inspiration of your previous ring, mrs-b’s and your CAD, just as a starting point for discussion.
@Rfisher ,thanks for putting together those 3 pics. Very helpful to see them side by side. First let me say that I am honestly just feeling my way through. I have no cad experience
I started with the original ring ( Stuller 123054) as a starting point. I wondered when I had it whether the bottom of the head was too congested, possibly blocking light, So Amy opened it up a bit. Then I saw the BG Freya shank which I thought was a nice touch. I was wondering if the shank could taper more. I would like the stone to shine. Does that help?
I started with the original ring ( Stuller 123054) as a starting point. I wondered when I had it whether the bottom of the head was too congested, possibly blocking light, So Amy opened it up a bit. Then I saw the BG Freya shank which I thought was a nice touch. I was wondering if the shank could taper more. I would like the stone to shine. Does that help?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
I just told her that I have a 2mm band. We haven't gotten to whether I should send it to her. Here is a picture of my wedding rings.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
Ok- my reasons for asking that question - if you want the cross section profile shape/height of the shank of the ring they are doing for you to exactly match your existing WB - they’ll probably need your band?
if your WB is actually 2mm, the CAD being at 2mm will actually finish out thinner - I think. Something to think about?
re: the taper - I think it’s pretty now, but would definitely ask to see a more tapered version CAD, as I think I agree with you on wanting a bit more.
you are also going from a bump/donut to nothing, so am unaware if this will change how they sit on your finger that much- and if that’s something you’d be concerned about.
i think I’d also suggest where your CAD has the shoulders attacking to the basket- I’d ask them to match the curve to as in mrs-b’s. Granted - thats pretty dang minute of a change but i like her swoop being a bit more graceful.
if your WB is actually 2mm, the CAD being at 2mm will actually finish out thinner - I think. Something to think about?
re: the taper - I think it’s pretty now, but would definitely ask to see a more tapered version CAD, as I think I agree with you on wanting a bit more.
you are also going from a bump/donut to nothing, so am unaware if this will change how they sit on your finger that much- and if that’s something you’d be concerned about.
i think I’d also suggest where your CAD has the shoulders attacking to the basket- I’d ask them to match the curve to as in mrs-b’s. Granted - thats pretty dang minute of a change but i like her swoop being a bit more graceful.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 12,085
Hi @Mlh -
I like that, in your CAD, the cathdral arms attach lower than in the Stuller ring. The reason that section of the band on my ring is different, ie solid and lower, is because, altho I do like a cathedral setting, I always feel as tho high-attached cathedral arms look as tho they're obscuring the head a trifle. In profile, they look very structural, rather than aesthetic. So on solitaires, I always do away with them, but have the band swooping upwards in a curve where it meets the head. It integrates the band with the head (as opposed to how it would look were the band to remain flat all the way to the head - and then having the head suddenly sticking up), without adding a lot of extra structural detail and metal. So to my eye, that's a win-win.
Secondly, I love the basket on your CAD! Very pretty, elegant, visually restful, and draws the eye upwards to the diamond. Just lovely. I think you've made as much of the visual approach to the stone as is possible with this kind of design - so, well done you!
As for the taper, if you look carefully, there definitely is one, but it's difficult to see and the band at the back overlaps the band at the front, and sort of 'fills in' the negative space made by the tapering effect where it joins the head - so it looks as tho it's maintaining the same width all the way around. Personally, my favorite combo is around 2.2mm at the back, to around 1.7mm at the front. But again - personal taste. It definitely tapers as is, tho, and will taper more as it reaches the head - which you'll see in real life. In the CAD, it's just obscured under the head, while the rest is made difficult to see by the back band behind the front band.
I think that's about all I have to contribute, design-wise, but if anything else springs to mind, I'll come back and add it. In the meantime, I'll definitely be following your journey! This is going to be a beautiful ring, Mlh!
I like that, in your CAD, the cathdral arms attach lower than in the Stuller ring. The reason that section of the band on my ring is different, ie solid and lower, is because, altho I do like a cathedral setting, I always feel as tho high-attached cathedral arms look as tho they're obscuring the head a trifle. In profile, they look very structural, rather than aesthetic. So on solitaires, I always do away with them, but have the band swooping upwards in a curve where it meets the head. It integrates the band with the head (as opposed to how it would look were the band to remain flat all the way to the head - and then having the head suddenly sticking up), without adding a lot of extra structural detail and metal. So to my eye, that's a win-win.
Secondly, I love the basket on your CAD! Very pretty, elegant, visually restful, and draws the eye upwards to the diamond. Just lovely. I think you've made as much of the visual approach to the stone as is possible with this kind of design - so, well done you!
As for the taper, if you look carefully, there definitely is one, but it's difficult to see and the band at the back overlaps the band at the front, and sort of 'fills in' the negative space made by the tapering effect where it joins the head - so it looks as tho it's maintaining the same width all the way around. Personally, my favorite combo is around 2.2mm at the back, to around 1.7mm at the front. But again - personal taste. It definitely tapers as is, tho, and will taper more as it reaches the head - which you'll see in real life. In the CAD, it's just obscured under the head, while the rest is made difficult to see by the back band behind the front band.
I think that's about all I have to contribute, design-wise, but if anything else springs to mind, I'll come back and add it. In the meantime, I'll definitely be following your journey! This is going to be a beautiful ring, Mlh!
Thanks so much for the advice and encouragement @mrs-b ! I remember reading one of your posts where you mentioned that you had a ring made that sat flush and you regretted it. Does a doughnut make sense for this design? I will ask Amy about the 2.2 to 1.7 taper you prefer...see what she says. I will keep the cathedral low. So glad you think this will be pretty
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 12,085
@Mlh -
I think with your set, flush makes sense. I wouldn't mess with that beautiful basket, unless it was, as @Rfisher said, to make them a tad more swoopy. If you decide this is what you want, just make sure you tell Amy that you want them to attach low and to have a clear, discernible swoop/curve. She'll get it - I know for a fact she's done that before.
I think with your set, flush makes sense. I wouldn't mess with that beautiful basket, unless it was, as @Rfisher said, to make them a tad more swoopy. If you decide this is what you want, just make sure you tell Amy that you want them to attach low and to have a clear, discernible swoop/curve. She'll get it - I know for a fact she's done that before.
@Mlh -
I think with your set, flush makes sense. I wouldn't mess with that beautiful basket, unless it was, as @Rfisher said, to make them a tad more swoopy. If you decide this is what you want, just make sure you tell Amy that you want them to attach low and to have a clear, discernible swoop/curve. She'll get it - I know for a fact she's done that before.
I really am such a novice....what does swoopy mean here?
Thank you @mrs-b!! I think you are talking about more curve right at the top of the basket leading into the prong. I looked back at your ring and can see the swoop you are referring to. I understand, tell Amy to have that start lower down. So helpful!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
these are only my opinions - there’s no right or wrong.
this below shows what I would ask Amy to adjust on your CAD so the side profile of the shank is more tapered instead of uniform.
but much of this looking ‘right’ might also depend on the look of it next to your existing WB, and the profile of that?
and this below shows what I would ask Amy to adjust on your CAD so the shoulder profile had more of a swoop to it.
I think I would also ask to see what the difference would be in the existing taper on the cathedral/shoulder area being adjusted to the 2.2 to 1.7 measurements as stated earlier.
Mrs-b rocks
I like your basket as is, wouldn’t change it.
oh how I envy your finger size!
this below shows what I would ask Amy to adjust on your CAD so the side profile of the shank is more tapered instead of uniform.
but much of this looking ‘right’ might also depend on the look of it next to your existing WB, and the profile of that?
and this below shows what I would ask Amy to adjust on your CAD so the shoulder profile had more of a swoop to it.
I think I would also ask to see what the difference would be in the existing taper on the cathedral/shoulder area being adjusted to the 2.2 to 1.7 measurements as stated earlier.
Mrs-b rocks
I like your basket as is, wouldn’t change it.
oh how I envy your finger size!
these are only my opinions - there’s no right or wrong.
this below shows what I would ask Amy to adjust on your CAD so the side profile of the shank is more tapered instead of uniform.
but much of this looking ‘right’ might also depend on the look of it next to your existing WB, and the profile of that?
and this below shows what I would ask Amy to adjust on your CAD so the shoulder profile had more of a swoop to it.
I think I would also ask to see what the difference would be in the existing taper on the cathedral/shoulder area being adjusted to the 2.2 to 1.7 measurements as stated earlier.
Mrs-b rocks
I like your basket as is, wouldn’t change it.
oh how I envy your finger size!
@Rfisher, thank you so much for taking the time to walk me through this. You and @mrs-b are just the best!! I will ask Amy these questions.
Just to be clear, the 2.2 to 1.7 width of the band is on the finished product, where I am looking to end up...yes?
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 12,085
Yes. And @Rfisher - thanks so much for that graphic - I was really hoping you might come along and add some clarity to what I was saying!
You're very welcome, @Mlh - I think this is going to be a terrific ring. What ctw is it? And - is it 7.46mm in diameter? Because on your size finger, that's going to be...
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
This is what I got back from AmyI am wondering if I am over my head
This ring is going to be the death of me
I don’t see it as better as your original inspiration. Just different. Both are beautiful designs - you just have to choose which one you ultimately like better.
I like how they tweaked the curve on the cathedral shoulder.
I don’t seem to enjoy how the CAD depicts the actual cathedral arm attachment to the basket now. Compare it to how that same area looked in the original CAD.
I don’t know if that directly transfers over to the cast model or not - I’d ask, to be certain. It looks rough now.
and - it looks like width of the shank was increased, but your shank tapering up to the basket no longer exists at all? am I mistaken or was that requested?
Ha, oh boy @Rfisher , possibly the game of telephone here... from what you told me and what I told Amy. I will tell you what I told her based on my understanding. I wrote to Amy that it was suggested that " the taper on the cathedral arms be more swoopy, curved with a taper from 2.2 at the back to 1.7." She sent me the above changes to the CAD. I asked if that seemed ok proportionally (as a check that I communicated correctly), she said, "I added in the shank taper and a bit more curve at the head." She said in response to my question about it being proportionate in her opinion, " I think the 1.7 at the head is a tiny bit wide, I might go slightly thinner". Does that make sense? I did send her a link to our discussion, just in case I communicated the ideas poorly.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
@Mlh
It does look like Amy did exactly what you asked - it’s just not translating well (IMO) in the outcome. That’s ok - it happens.
If you keep with this design and don’t think you want to change designs-
Ask her to return the taper at the cathedral to what it originally was -but keep the bottom of the shank measurement the 2.2.
It does look like Amy did exactly what you asked - it’s just not translating well (IMO) in the outcome. That’s ok - it happens.
If you keep with this design and don’t think you want to change designs-
Ask her to return the taper at the cathedral to what it originally was -but keep the bottom of the shank measurement the 2.2.
Thank you @Rfisher . I will do that. She very generously offered to send me a model of both designs. Hopefully that will help me get a clearer picture of what I would like to do. I so appreciate your time and help with this project!!
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
Thanks @Rfisher! Isn't the 2.00 going to 1.8 a taper? I am not sure how to describe it. When we tried the adjustment last time, I don't think it looked right. So hard
I just know I really don't like a very pinched look right at the stone. But subtle taper is pretty. Do you think the 2.1, 2.0, 1.8 listed on the CAD should change?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 5,904
this original taper at your cathedral area of the shank is what I was referring to, vs seeing apparently no taper in the new CAD.
no right or wrong - just what you prefer.
I see. Not sure why she changed it. Maybe the added beading on the shank? I will ask. Thank you for your patience with me @Rfisher !
nothing to do with addition of the beading.
This area of taper was already removed on your November 16 posted CAD.
and you are welcome
Spoke to her by phone.....will add back some taper. Boy is it easier by pbone vs email!! This process is very humbling
Thank you again @Rfisher!!
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish - 06/27
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It - 06/27
300x240.png)